Monday, November 30, 2009

It's been several weeks, but just in case you missed this report in the Guardian:

Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources.

It turns out that some whistleblower from the IEA has come out saying that the reported figures for oil reserves have been exaggerated to appease the United States. Peak oil activist Colin Campbell is quoted as saying that the misleading figures are probably fortunate, for if we had the real figures financial markets would certainly panic.

Personally, I find the analysis in the quote above interesting. The US has spent an enormous effort on getting control of oil resources, and now it may turn out that the investment wasn't worthwhile. Too bad we didn't spend the past few decades rigorously working to get control of renewable resources at home.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

In a recent article, the Wall Street Journal praises a Dutch proposal to use GPS systems in all cars in order to collect road taxes based both on distances traveled and times of use.

I cannot understand this thinking. The WSJ completely fails to mention that such a system would not only make the use of roads in the Netherlands very cheap for foreigners, who would not have such systems in their vehicles. In addition, some part of the state would know exactly when and where you are driving at all times.

Strangely, Germany comes in for some criticism. The WSJ links to Deutsche Welle, which writes:

Compared with the Dutch system, Dudenhoeffer said, Germany's car taxes are "a monster." They fail to "steer" policy, they are too complicated, and they don't take actual road usage into account, he noted.

"You pay the same in taxes for a car that drives 100 kilometers per year as you do for the same car that drives 100,000 kilometers," Dudenhoeffer said.

Total nonsense -- Dudenhoeffer is only referring to the fee for license plates, which are indeed based on the size and type of the engine, not on the number of kilometers driven. But Germany has a very successful ecotax system that has raised the price of gasoline, very successfully steering road use. Sales of small cars rose as this tax was incrementally added, and more people switched to public transport. The one thing that this ecotax does not do is limit congestion during rush hour, but I would have thought that the traffic jams themselves would be a deterrent to those who have a choice.

This GPS stuff is going to be quite costly. I doubt you will be able to install such systems for less than 50 dollars a vehicle. In contrast, simply raising the price of gasoline costs zero cents per vehicle, and it penalizes according to distance traveled and engine size, which the GPS project does not automatically do (they are tweaking the system to accommodate for gas guzzlers).

Overall, it seems like the Dutch have latched onto some technological fix for a problem that could be solved quite simply through higher gas prices. And because Americans do not understand how sensible and straightforward gas taxes are, they are also mesmerized by this technological fix.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

[Update: the full article is available as a PDF from one of the author's website.]

Calling all FIT advocates -- two economists from the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW) have published an article in a recent issue of the Energy Journal. Unfortunately, the abstract is only available as a pop up, so I have included the entire abstract here:

Most models that are used to analyze support policies for renewable electricity neglect important market features like oligopolistic behavior, emission trading, and restricted cross-border transmission capacities. We use a quantitative electricity market model that accounts for these aspects and decompose [too bad professional journals do not have editors anymore -- "break down" would certainly have been better than "decompose" here] the impact of the German Feed-in tariff (FIT) into two frequently counteracting effects: a substitution effect and a permit price effect. We find that the total effect of the policy increases the German consumer price slightly by three percent, while the producer price decreases by eight percent. In addition, emissions from electricity generation in Germany are reduced by eleven percent but are hardly altered on the European scale. Finally, it turns out that price-cost margins of almost all firms are increased by the FIT, while nonetheless, the profits of firms are significantly lowered unless the firms combine relatively carbon-intensive production with a weak connection to the German grid.

This article should be useful to us because the DIW's economic research is generally quite sound. (You may remember that they came out against the RWI report which found that support for solar was counterproductive.)

Interestingly, Der Spiegel (Germany's main news weekly, though it simply cannot get energy issues right -- I thrash their coverage of wind power across three pages in my book) has apparently interpreted this article in a way that the authors did not intend, and they have responded. Solarpraxis writes that the authors apparently (I have not paid the 20 dollars to read the original article) say that support for renewable energy should be designed to work well with whatever emissions trading policies are simultaneously implemented. But Der Spiegel seems to have understood that to mean that German renewables policy does not work.

The authors respond in a press release: "This conclusion is nonsensical, misleading, journalistically unprofessional. The journalists fail to understand that both instruments -- support for renewables and emissions trading -- have to be seen in relation to each other, which is exactly what we do... Feed-in tariffs have therefore justifiably been copied by a large number of other countries."

Friday, November 27, 2009

Having been away from the US for three years, I suppose a bit of a culture shock coming and going was to be expected. The picture to the left was actually taken back at the end of 2005 in Katrina-stricken New Orleans. It is a piece of boudin, which is a local spicy rice sausage (not the blood sausage you'll find in France).

Back when I ordered that plate, I was amazed at all of the Styrofoam and plastic that came with it. In fact, a lot of the meals on that trip were served as though I were on a picnic, not in a restaurant.

Four years later, things were basically the same in New Orleans and Washington DC. I paid around 14 dollars for a plate of food at the airport in Washington and was served on a plastic plate with a plastic fork and knife. In the US, you apparently really have to go pretty far upscale to be served drinks in real glass and food with real metal cutlery and porcelain plates.

Back in Germany, the culture shock continued. After 10 days in the US, I had become so accustomed to getting free refills of iced tea and ice water that I nearly perished when I first went out to eat in Freiburg. German restaurants have quite a bit to learn about serving food. Any basic Italian restaurant will immediately bring out some finger food for the kids, and most places in the US also immediately serve you bread and butter or something similar (like nachos and salsa), but in Germany you never get anything for free, and they bring you out these really terribly small (0.2 liter) glasses of water if you are not careful enough to order the large.

In France, you are always given some bread and water right away, but in Germany you get nothing.

To make matters worse, water is often more expensive than beer or other drinks in German restaurants. Take a look at the menu at Munich's Hofbräuhaus, which is pretty typical (PDF). Beer goes for around 6.90 euros a liter, but "Tafelwasser" will run you 4.75 euros per liter, while "Siegsdorfer Petrusquelle" goes for 8.80 euros per liter -- and is only sold in 0.25 liter portions. An "Apfelsaftschorle" (half bubbly water, half apple juice -- the most common drink in Germany) will set you back eight euros per liter.

Amazingly, all of this lack of drinking water is part of a long German tradition. Some 20 years ago, I learned that Germans often do not even take a drink with their lunch -- and indeed, when I came to Freiburg in 1992, the university cafeteria, where some 4,500 students ate each day, did not offer any kind of drinks at all -- no vending machine, no water fountain (in fact, there are basically no water fountains in Germany at all -- Germans apparently do not think their tap water is for drinking, even though it is among the cleanest in the world). If you wanted something to drink, you had to bring your own. (The cafeteria is now full of vending machines and even has a café.)

Wouldn't it be great if American restaurants started serving on real plates with real cutlery like the rest of the world? And if German restaurants brought out some tap water and a bit of bread when they come to take your orders like the rest of the world?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

In an interesting turn of events, SolarServer.de writes that PV journal "Solarthemen" has criticized the way that Germany's Network Agency counts the number of arrays. Most importantly, it seems that some arrays may have been counted twice.

This issue is important because the rates paid for solar are reduced ahead of schedule if a certain threshold for installed capacity is exceeded during a year. Granted, with the ceiling at 1.5 gigawatts and around 2.4 gigawatts actually installed over the past four quarters, the debate is largely academic at the moment -- no one is charging that the Network Agency missed the target by a full 60 percent.

But more pertinently to this blog, the issue makes it even more difficult to calculate the average array size, which is a quite interesting exercise because the German market is largely driven by small distributed rooftop arrays on homes, whereas the US market seems to be focusing on utility-scale arrays in the field.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Take a look at the picture to the left and guess what city that is before you continue reading; you can also click on the image to enlarge it.

One of the clichés that Germans have about the US was recently included in a collection of typical German clichés at Die Zeit: "Man muss nur einen Tag durch Washington laufen, um zu wissen, wie wichtig der Sozialstaat ist" (you only have to walk through Washington for a day to know how important the welfare state is.)

Last week, I had the privilege of walking through Washington DC for four days, and I was very impressed with the city, perhaps because Germans had prepped me to expect so much poverty. In fact, the city was quite beautiful in the fall, and the area around the Mall -- where you can walk for some 45 minutes from the Capitol building to the Lincoln Memorial past the Washington Monument and the World War II monument -- is a wonderful place to visit. It is also a wonderful place for locals, many of whom use the area to go jogging in. I cannot imagine a nicer place to go jogging regularly.

Further to the north, the actual city begins, and every street all the way up to P Street looks very much like it is part of a clean, modern city: tall (5 to 10 story) office buildings made of glass and stone, with shops on the ground floor. Around P Street, the city becomes more residential, and the picture I took above, which could easily have been somewhere in Britain, was actually right off of DuPont Circle.

Granted, it wasn't hard to find places of greater poverty, such as towards the eastern side of town, where my hotel was. And even though I saw a good half of the city, I still may not have discovered the worst areas -- which also means you cannot stumble upon them in a single day. In the other picture to the left, which was taken in a neighborhood that was beginning to show some blight, the street doesn't look that bad at all -- I'm sure any number of New Orleanians would love to have that kind of housing.

In short, I have no idea what the Germans are talking about when they say that Washington DC is the best example of why we need the welfare state. I found it to be a truly enticing city -- one of the few cities in the US I would like to live in, especially if the city gave its citizens proper welfare, health care, schools, and energy policies.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, a number of solar firms are trying to set up networks of installers around the country. For those of us campaigning for feed-in tariffs in the US, this news comes as a bit of a surprise -- though if you check the companies mentioned in the article, you will see that some prominent names are missing, and it is those companies that have opposed feed-in tariffs openly in the US.

Since feed-in tariffs are obviously the policy of choice for solar, we FIT campaigners have been left wondering why a number of solar firms refused to support the idea. The notion has been tossed about that these firms do not want to sell directly to the little guys, but instead focus on large utility-scale arrays. But I have never understood that line of thinking -- in the case mentioned in the WSJ, the firms would essentially be selling to groups that could more or less act as wholesalers. And as the article states, this market segment actually has a wider profit margin than the large utility stuff, so you do get paid for the extra administrative work.

Any ideas on what is going on would be greatly appreciated. Are we witnessing a gradual change of heart? If so, we might be able to get our foot in the door with FITs.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the "net job effect" argument, which basically holds that investments in one sector (such as renewables) create fewer jobs than investments in other sectors (such as -- and I kid you not -- flipping burgers).

Perhaps the most incredible thing about the net-jobs argument was that the "studies" published were so shoddy and yet received so much flattering publicity -- the Spanish one in particular was only ever a draft, and that was eight months ago. We have yet to see the final version of this document.

Now, it seems that lobbyists in the health care sector have realized how successful such "reports" are. As the Washington Post writes, a similar campaign is now planned against the Obama administration's proposals for health care reform:

"The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document."

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Solarpraxis reports that the German the PV sector will make a specific offer for a compromise to the new governing coalition: a further one-off reduction in rates of 4.5 percent effective July 1 followed by a further reduction of 4.5 to 5 percent on January 1, 2011.

Since rates are expected to be reduced by 8 to 9 percent per year anyway, depending on how fast the market grows, this offer essentially would leave the rates for 2011 more or less the same, with an added interim reduction introduced for Q3 and Q4 2010.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

... wrote Dorothy Fields in 1935 (the song was "I won't dance"). Today's listeners no doubt interpret the line to mean, "I'm not unfeeling." In fact, the original meaning, since asbestos was originally used as a flame-retardant construction material, was probably closer to "I won't put out the flame."

In New Orleans last week, there was quite a lot of talk about asbestos, which was not only removed from a lot of the buildings that were gutted over the past four years (roughly 3/4 of the city) -- to my dismay, it also continues to be used in rebuilding. It turns out that asbestos is not even illegal in the US, but at least it was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans back in 1991 that overturned a 1989 law to phase out the use of asbestos. It seems crudely fair somehow that New Orleans would suffer so much from one of its courts' rulings...

Needless to say, asbestos is completely banned in the EU and Switzerland. The German Wikipedia entry for Asbest says, "Asbestos is primarily a disposal problem today" (Asbest stellt heute primär ein Entsorgungsproblem dar.) And this difference in the handling of dangerous substances does not stop with asbestos: the EU has REACH legislation, which forces companies to prove that the chemicals they use are not harmful, whereas US citizens have to prove that chemicals used by companies are dangerous -- the burden of proof is the opposite.

All of which really makes me feel sorry for all of those wonderful people in the United States, whose government puts private profits ahead of public well-being.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

In addition to visiting New Orleans, I also wanted to drive down the Mississippi to visit places I had never actually seen, but read much about in the wake of Katrina.

St. Bernard Parish is immediately adjacent Orleans Parish. It was the site of the Battle of New Orleans; it was also where the levee was intentionally blown up when the Mississippi River threatened the city in 1929. Back then, poor whites were sacrificed to save the city.

St Bernard largely consisted of people who would have proudly called themselves "coonasses." They also were (are?) extreme racists who, led by Leander Perez, entered New Orleans in the early 1960s to threaten black 1st grade schoolgirls integrating schools in Orleans for the first time in 90 years (yes, America, we had integrated schools in 1869). St Bernard is proud to be associated with Perez even today; their main street is named after him.

Plaquemines is actually whence Perez hailed. In Port Sulphur, Perez refused to provide plumbing to the black community until his death.

Anyway, these places do not necessarily exist any longer, at least not as they did before Katrina. They were wiped out by a 22 foot wall of water in parts, and Venice LA was even flooded during Hurricane Ida last week, which did not even cause rain in Orleans.

For some pictures of what's going on down there today, see my slideshow.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Whereas in the US e-book sales between January and August 2009 already exceeded USD 100 m (equivalent to about 1% of total book sales at last count), electronic books have not generated even 0.1% of Germany’s total book sales of about EUR 9 bn.

That means that 300 million Americans spend around 10 bn USD on books, roughly the same as 80 million Germans - or 30% less, if we convert the euro figure at the current exchange rate. We then get 13.5 bn USD in Germany.

My point is that Germans are apparently spending several times as much per capita on books. And lest you think that the lack of ebook sales are a sign of German technophobia, keep in mind that Europe just got the Kindle a few weeks ago, and still Kindle books are ordered from the US in English (there are almost no German titles available). All kings of gadgets (iPhones, eee PCs, etc.) are released in the US as much as a year before being released in Europe.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

When Thomas Mann visited his home country of Germany shortly after WW II (he had been in exile in California), he visited a town that had been nearly completely destroyed (as almost all German towns had). He wrote that the mayor took him up on a hill and showed him what was left - there you can still see the medieval tower, that's the old church, and the historic city hall is over there. Thomas Mann noted in his dairy, "Nothing was there."

For my first visit to New Orleans since December 2005 (which started last Sunday), New Orleanians said, Craig, you're gonna love it. It's better than before Katrina.

So I took Thomas Mann along on this trip to see what he thinks. True, he said, the worst is behind us, and I do not have to think what I did not have the heart to say to my German host 64 years ago. But Craig, he asked, you wrote in Dec 2005 that New Orleans had retained all of its character even with only 70-80,000 people. What has changed since then?

Thomas, I answered, I'm not going to try to pass as someone who can judge that. But he and I agreed that not all parts of town are a happy sight. The site of the 17th St Canal levee breach has been cleaned up, so between inhabited homes are empty lots. For out-of-towners, it could be a new suburb under development.

The 9th Ward -- see my pic from 2005 of the devastation -- is now also cleaned up, but almost completely empty. Yet here, a solar housing project is underway that will dwarf the largest such neighborhood in Freiburg when completed.

Nonetheless, traffic seems less in Orleans Parish now, and pics like the one here could be taken almost all over town.

Near the end of the trip, Thomas noticed that a slight sadness overcame me as I thought about going back to Germany, especially with the New Orleans Saints undefeated. I know that feeling, he said, but listen: your kids in Germany go around the house singing "jock-amo fee na ne"; they eat spicy cheese grits (made from "chopped dried corn" bought at little Russian shops - it has to be cooked for ages like 100 years ago) and red beans & rice; they know it's time to go to bed when you say, "fais do-do"; and they know that boyds are small animals that fly (and that they live in Geoymany). And they've never even been to the States.

So, Thomas told me, when you go back to Germany, as you must, remember what I told the press in 1938 upon reaching US soil as a German exile:

Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Guardian has published another article on Vauban, a Freiburg neighborhood considered progressive in many respects but largely misrepresented. But this author does not make any mistakes in his admittedly brief presentation.

He also points out that other car-free districts often physically prevent you from driving up to your front door, which is only an inconvenience. Why should I not be able to transport a new fridge by truck or a giant load of groceries by car?

Unfortunately, the Guardian also references a laughable previous article it seems to be proudly sticking to. I dissect it here.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

As a boy growing up near the Louisiana Gulf Coast, I remember looking out of the car window at times and seeing gigantic flames over the bayous: gas flares. Around 1970, the flaring of natural gas peaked. Oil prices were so low back then that marketing gas would not have been profitable.

Today, far less natural gas is flared off both in terms of volume and, consequentially, as a percentage of our much higher current energy consumption. Oil prices have, of course, risen dramatically over the past 40 years, but environmentalists have also been working hard to get oil and gas companies to reduce gas flaring. Nonetheless, it is estimated that the world still flares off several weeks’ worth of natural gas supply each year.

Left with far fewer resources, future generations will be dumbfounded at our wastefulness. Why did we not take action sooner?

Ask anyone today, and the answer would be that we leave matters up to the market. And for a long time, the market’s answer was that natural gas was a waste product of oil extraction in many cases. We chose to implement legislation banning gas flaring; here, government intervention trumped the market. Another option would have been to mandate a higher price for gas so that the profit margin for oil and gas would have been more equal. Utilities would have at least been encouraged to use gas turbines to generate electricity where gas is plentiful; the higher prices could then have been spread across all power consumers. The market would still have been free—companies still could have done whatever they want—but it simply would have covered more resources.

Here, we see why this option was not pursued: while our resources would have been used more efficiently, electricity rates would have gone up. Rate hikes are politically unpalatable in the Anglo world, even if they help us use resources more efficiently. So we let oil compete with gas, and oil won for decades. And we flared off tremendous amounts of natural gas.

Competing companies: While the proposal I describe above—leveling the profit margins for energy resources—was not implemented for fossil fuels, it has been used successfully for renewables. It is called feed-in tariffs (FITs), and it is the driver behind Europe’s main success stories.

Its detractors in the English-speaking world used the same logic that was used 40 years ago in the petroleum industry: we need competition, and price fixing is anathema to free markets. Of course, the United States has had price fixing in the electricity sector since the 1930s (that’s what is meant when we say that utilities are “regulated”)—but let’s focus on what is meant by “competition.”

Normally, when we think about competition, companies come to mind: GM versus Toyota, Dell vs. Apple, etc. Of course, there is also competition between products and technologies, such as between VHS and Betamax (or, for my younger readers, between Blu-ray and HD DVD). Notice that Betamax and HD DVD disappeared from the market completely—which is itself a considerable waste of effort and investment, though having a single format certainly has its advantages.

If we now look at ways of generating electricity, we see that it would be nice to have competition between companies, but what sense does it make to have competition between resources? If we can leave the resource untouched, then it remains available for future generations—no problem. But if we have to discard one (natural gas) in order to get at another (crude oil), then it makes sense to ensure that the profit margins on both resources are roughly equal so that it pays to exploit both resources instead of wasting one. The resources need not compete as long as the extraction companies do.

Wind and solar may seem to differ in one respect: we cannot exhaust them. The sun will not be depleted regardless of how many solar panels we have, and no number of wind turbines will measurably reduce the amount of wind on Earth. Nonetheless, the amount of renewable energy we neglect to use can also be considered waste. Each day, we get a certain amount of potential solar and wind power. Were we to use more of it, our consumption of non-renewable resources would be reduced. As a result, the range of our fossil fuels could be extended dramatically.

RPS, cap-and-trade, FIT: If we agree that we would be willing to pay more today in order to use both our renewable and non-renewable resources more efficiently, the question is which policy promotes competition among companies, not resources. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) are old-school thinking; utilities have to meet a target for “renewables,” and if no further specifications are made, then renewables compete with each other. The cheapest wins, and the rest go nowhere.

Emissions trading is a more recent idea, but it is even worse in a way. Here, large energy producers and consumers are required to reduce emissions. The scheme is praised for allowing decision-makers the flexibility to choose the cheapest way to meet their target: technology overhauls (“clean coal”), investments in third-party offsets (tree plantations funding oor technological overhauls abroad), the purchase of allowances from other market players, new low-carbon technologies (renewables), or perhaps just paying a fine. Here, renewables not only compete with each other, but also with all of these options.

Neither RPSs nor emissions trading ensures a comparable, reasonable return on investments in both wind and solar. FITs do. Critics of FITs charge that the policy “picks winners,” but the charge only applies to the energy sources promoted—not to any particular companies or technologies. True, those of us who support FITs for solar and wind have picked these two resources as winners—guilty as charged. But we have not, to take the example of solar, picked any particular company, nor have we even picked a particular technology. Who can say whether crystalline or thin film panels (or perhaps something else) will be more popular in 2020? Indeed, if we provide roughly the same profit margin for concentrated solar power and photovoltaics today, we may find that the one or the other is clearly preferable by 2030—but then, we may nonetheless choose to keep the more expensive one as a niche product despite the price difference. After all, it would have been the sensible thing to do with natural gas 40 years ago.

We have a history of taking only the cheapest energy first. Our children will pay the price that we refused to pay, so they may very well view our old-school thinking as myoptic. FITs are the new school.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

For roughly the next two weeks, you should be able to stream this show, featuring an interview with Al Gore on his new book. Skip to around a minute 11 for the beginning of the interview, but also be sure to view it until the very end, where Colbert comes on with a great question.

I have faced a number of doubters of renewables, but I don't think I have ever faced such difficult questioning as Gore faced with Stewart here. I wonder how many of the renewables activists reading this blog would have enjoyed facing his questions.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Die Zeit opens a report on the lower unemployment figures in Eastern Germany with a picture of solar cell production. It turns out that the former Communist states, where unemployment figures of 15 to 20 percent are common, have actually continued to strengthen over the past year. A lot of Germany's manufacturing base in these new renewables sectors are based in the East, and the article says there is a connection. Over the past year, the unemployment rate in the former communist states fell from 14.8 to 13.9 percent.

The figure is 7.7 percent for all of Germany (compared to the current 10.2 percent in the US).

Can the same effects be expected in the US? Not if you believe the interpretation of Ken Silverstein at Harper's. He interprets this report from the Boston globe to mean that green jobs are "moving to China."

I'm not convinced. All easy manufacturing is moving to places where labor is cheap (in terms of skill, panel manufacturing is closer to furniture assembly than to high-tech solar cell/wafer production); German solar firms have also announced that they will increasingly be manufacturing in Asia, and nonetheless they still serve as a stabilizing factor at home.

Monday, November 9, 2009

In an interesting article in the recent issue of scientific American, two American scientists make a very good case for a complete switch to renewables (nothing that hasn't been said before, but it is nice to see this kind of stuff go mainstream), in which they also expressed support for feed-in tariffs in passing:

A feed-in tariff (FIT) program to cover the difference between generation cost and wholesale electricity prices is especially effective at scaling-up new technologies. Combining FITs with a so-called declining clock auction [aka a Dutch or reverse auction], in which the right to sell power to the grid goes to the lowest bidders, provides continuing incentive for WWS [water, wind, and solar] developers to lower costs. As that happens, FITs can be phased out. FITs have been implemented in a number of European countries and a few U.S. states and have been quite successful in stimulating solar power in Germany.

Never mind that FIT's have been implemented in almost all EU countries, not just a number of them -- it is simply a joy to see FITs presented without further comment as the main way to do things. I suppose we will just have to accept all of the other tinkering -- the combination of FITs with auctions, net-metering, etc. -- that American proponents of FITs seems so fond of. If you, like me, prefer your FITs straight with no chaser, keep in mind that Spain also has a kind of "floating bonus" closely related to what Americans would call the "merit order price" for wind power. And Spain has done quite well with wind.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

One of my readers commented on the simple calculation I performed to get the average size of a photovoltaics array in Germany. He pointed out the following passage from Germany's Network Agency:

The installed nominal output for the individual figures indicated cannot be taken to represent the overall output of the system in question. For instance, if a ground-mounted array is connected to the grid in sections, then each section reported on a different day is a registered at the Network Agency as a separate system on those different days, so that the overall plant's nominal output cannot be gathered from the lists.

In layman's terms, a 240 kW system might actually be connected to the grid in four segments of 60 kW, so that single array would appear as four 60 kW systems, not one 240 kW system.

My reader says that this report, which has apparently not been translated though a press release was published in English, contains the adjusted figures, though if you take a look at the bottom of page 13, you will see that the report contains a similar caveat for wind power, though I could not find an indication of the same for solar.

Anyway, assuming that the figures were adjusted for solar, the report from July 2009 unfortunately only applies to figures at the end of 2007, but they clearly indicate the following figures (also in the chart on page 13) of total power by arrays size:

2,591 kW in arrays smaller than 30 kW

686 kW in arrays from 30 to 100 kW

281 kW in arrays from 100 to 500 kW

419 kW in arrays larger than 500 kW

Clearly, the smallest category predominates, though a 30 kW array is not necessarily that small -- you would probably only have three or four on your average home roof, and even a large Black Forest farmhouse is going to max out around that size (panels used to produce around 150 W are now closer to 200, so you would still need around roughly 150 of these things to get 30 kW).

At any rate, it certainly seems hard to get the average array size. If anyone has any other sources, please let me know.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

In a report by pvXchange published in the current issue of pv magazine, a market analyst claims that "only around 8.6 megawatts has been connected to the grid in 2009 in Spain even though more than 250 megawatts has been approved."

Unfortunately, no explanation is given, and I cannot find anything else in German or English on the web. However, I was able to reach the author, who told me that banks are reluctant to lend money these days.

Friday, November 6, 2009

On Wednesday, Frank Asbeck apparently told Handelsblatt (according to photovoltaik.eu -- the Handelsblatt site is premium content) that he could imagine a one-off reduction of another 10 percent on April 1 or July 1 of next year after the already scheduled reduction of 9 to 11 percent (depending on type of system) that will already take effect on January 1. The new rates for roof arrays would then reportedly be around 25 percent lower than in 2008 and nearly 30 percent lower for ground-mounted arrays.

Meanwhile, Joachim Pfeiffer, energy spokesperson for the CDU, has stated that the automatic reduction that will take place on January 1 does not go far enough. ("Dies wird jedoch nicht ausreichen, um die Verbraucher vor unzumutbaren Kosten in den nächsten Jahren zu bewahren".)

The German Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) has yet to come out with any specific proposals of its own.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

On Tuesday night, a commentator on the nightly news here in Germany started off with the comment that Angela Merkel gave a speech in the US that she had never given in the Bundestag -- one tailored specifically to Americans. That seems to be the general tenor here: Americans like to hear the personal stuff, not just substance. Die Zeit comments:

The speech was not grand, but major. She told the Americans what they like to hear: she talked about herself and her life behind barbed wire. About her desire for blue jeans and freedom -- and the big, unbelievable moment when the Wall fell and she was allowed to enter the West to live her own "American dream."

Die Welt ran an article entitled "Merkel's Speech Pleases America and Helps Germany" (Merkels Rede gefällt Amerika und hilft Deutschland), which perhaps sums up the reaction the best: the German press seems to believe that Merkel served Germany best by just telling Americans what they want to hear anyway.

The comments under these articles are a bit different, however. Commenters seem to feel that Merkel was kotowing a bit excessively. Not everyone seems convinced, as Merkel claimed, that America wants the best for Germany. At Die Zeit, one person even pointed out that, while the United States did indeed encourage France and Britain to let the two Germanies unite, it was these powers who caused the split in the first place in the late 1940s (prompting another commenter to ask, What would you have done?).

Incidentally, the German press also produced a review of how the world press received the new German Foreign Secretary. They found that Americans in particular like to point out that he is openly gay.

It is indeed noteworthy that a gay man and a woman in pants now represent the country, as this excellent article in German about the history of women's rights and gay rights in Germany points out.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Recently, I blogged on how solar rates would be reduced in Germany effective January 1. I stated that they would now be reduced by 11 percent, but that is not true for every type of system -- some will be reduced by nine percent. (Both decreases represent a further reduction.)

The press release from Germany's Network Agency is here (PDF) in German. There is still no translation of that press release, and the agency has not yet responded to my query about whether one will be published in English.

(Update: the Agency says the press release will not be translated.)

One further comment: the press release states that the roughly 1400 megawatts installed from Q4 2008 - Q3 2009 were spread across some 77,000 arrays, putting us at an average arrays size of only 19 kilowatts (the average home rooftop probably only has three or four kilowatts). Clearly, homeowners' small arrays drive the German market.

Monday, November 2, 2009

The German Environmental Ministry has just completed a website -- in German and English -- that provides an overview of policies related to rates paid, grid access, and types of policies. A lot of links to original legal texts are also included.

The website looks to be an excellent source for anyone wanting to see what a particular EU country does.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

From September 2008 to September 2009, prices for photovoltaics fell by roughly 30 percent, but in October, it seems that prices began rising again. At present, a lot of the biggest names in the business are practically sold out and manufacturing at full blast. But the biggest shortage is in the inverters -- the equipment used to convert the direct current from the panels into alternating current for the grid.

It will be interesting to see how quickly prices rebound and how the rebound affects the expected reduction in the German feed-in tariff.